Warbird

My organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, broke the story on this earlier this year.  As has been pointed out above, it is a multi pronged attempt to cut off and starve industries Elizabeth Warren, when she was the head of the Consumer FInancial Protection Bureau, deemed risky behavior  In other words consumers buying things she didn't, doesn't, think they should be involed in.   The DOJ is threatening / pressuring banks to cut off banking and access to credit to legal industries the administration has a problem with.  I am at present interested in knowing someone / business, who has been effected and who would like to sue the governmet for cause.  Holdler said Monday he is committed to seeing this operation though.  I hope to stop him in his tracks and we have a history of sucessfully doing just that.

Midway's round-up program, which is money given by customers, has also produced over $4 milion to the NRA since its inception.  Larry Potterfield also essentially founded the Friends of the NRA program.

I agree. My point is that there are many factors that determine the severity of a particular storm. Some of them are very concentrated in area, some are extremely large. Some carry far more rain than others. Some have have a much greater wall of water, which is a factor of pressure and wind. Having grown up with a father who flew in the navy, I have lived in my fair share of hurricane areas. My basic point is I don't simply look at the category and think ell this will be easy and this one will be hard. And yes indeed I would take 90 mph winds all day over 130mph winds. None the less this is all providing me entertainment while I work a bit from home and wait for the major push of the storm and hope I don't lose electricity. At least it isn't 100 degrees ike the last two times I lost electricity for extended time.

Actually it is not the strength of the category that is of concern. IT is a the wall of water from the extraordinarily low pressure in the storm. Lower pressure than measured in a storm to hit the east coast in a very long time if ever. The other factor is the confluence of what they call the frankenstorm. It is the meeting of two large storms at one tie, a hurrican and a nor'easter. This creates a storm nearly 1000 miles across, with a stong wall of water heading to the the most densely populated part ot the United States. I would normally agree that anything affecting major center of media is worse than other things in other parts of the country. However the people usually most sedate in their reactions, are very concerned about the storm. I hope they are wrong Hopefully it won't be any big deal but to a small art of the area, but everything currenty says otherwise. As was stated people get way too hung up in categories and in the end they are general guidelines. Many things go into the severity of these storms. My personal experience in living on the east coast twice has been that our worst storms have been the nor'easters. The hurricanes have been uisances. Here we have both meeting just as the hurricane is about to make landfall. By the way Katrina was a Cat 3 when it approached landfall.

We have battened down the hatches and loaded up on privisions here in the DC area. Prepared to ride it out.

I have had a 681 as a hunting sidearm for 20 years. It is always my go to hunting back up sidearm. I had the trigger reworked many years ago. It is good as is, but can be excellent when put in the hands of a good gunsmith. I don't carry a revolver as an EDC and though I own several revolver heirlooms that i wouldn't sell, the 681 won't likely ever be sold because I love the pistol. The ony other revolver I carry is a 44 mag Ruger, again as a hunting sidearm.

The other day my 9 year old son said to me "dad it matters a lot who has the biggest stick, but it matters a hell of a lot more who is swinging it ". I'm a proud dad! Harrumph! He knows evil from good and who the good guys are.

I found out about Paul's passing from Aaron. Was very saddened to hear the news. I don't think anyone was better, or more innovative, on AK training than Paul. He was good at all aspects, but was a true innovator when it came to thinking about the AK as more than a rifle used by the bad guys. He and his intellect will be missed.

I had hoped to head over to the mall today, but got caught up in meetings. I hope those that made the trip enjoyed their visit to the memorials. Of the recently added memorials and planned memorials the WWII memorial is the only one they got right.

I guess overpowered is in the eyes of the hunter and what they hunt. Personally being a person who likes to eat what I kill, i'd refer to only use what is necessary for the job to preserve the most meat. I have never found mch useful in the old large bore rifles. Ammo has improved much over the years and less is necessary. I have shot a 700 nitro double gun and have no use t'all for the dang things. I have never shot anything or hunted with anyone who needed more than a 570 mitro. some like to hunt with th old rifles, but the dang 700 jut outright hurts. I think my favorite large bore, powerful is the 416 Remington. There are few animals on earth that the 416 is too small to use. That is one sweet rifle and IMO has less recoil than the 375 H&H. Though some I guess like the wildcat rounds theyuse, ultrapowerful rifles on the deer in this part of the country is way overkill, literally. Some just like to say they hunt with this or that. In the end though it really comes down to what one hunts with as to what is overly large or powerful.

Don't buy the tax hyperbole. Buffest was taxed twice on most of his money already. He was taxed at the very high corporate rate. THen again pre-investments. He makes most of his money post dividends, which is at a lower rate since it was taxed already. And it really only is taxed when it is realized as cash. He likely doesn't take much in cash and lets it rde since his corporation liely pays huge amounts of his highest expenses. Rich people pay more in taxes both in real cash and as a percentage of their income. There is no dubt about that. Europe by contrast taxes all dividends and investment gains whether realized or not. People who have money invested for the future should really question whether they want to go down that road. I for one, do not. His secretary makes a large salary $300,000+ and that is in real income. So she is also paying a high amount. Buffet is ding others bidding for favors. Not only would he stand to gain from infrastructure building like the artile states, but he also stands to gain more from the toppage of the oil pipeline than anyone else. As was stated above, this is cronyis not capitalism. Free markets and the idea of business liberty do not pay political favorites to favor friends. Buffet is no different than the head of GE touting the end of the incandescent lightbulb for the long run favor of GE over all of their competitors.Using government to eliminate competition and increase your own business is among the worst of exploitation. This is a non-partisan issue. All sides have been guilty of it.

I'm not certain this particular case has anything to do with one organization being better than another. Many organizations will lay some claim to a victory in this case and in some ways they are right. However, this wasn't GOA's case or fight in any substantive way at all. The larger ramifications of this decision was what they wrote an Amicus on. That's fine. The question was to their level of involvement and that is what I responded to.

I think that pretty much sums it up, an Amicus brief.

For one, Rand Paul was not in the senate when the rules in place were put there. Now that is if you believe that all of the rules followed by the TSA are currently codified by law. In fact they are not. Most of their rules are general in nature. Meaning specifics are put in place by regulation doled out by the appointed leaders of the department while in power. Secondly, he has been an outspoken critic of these rules since entering the senate. He wasn't taking this on because he thought he deserved special privilege. He was taking this on because he thinks the rules in place are not good ones for ANY American. Lastly I will say that Paul never used the trump card or even mentioned it. The Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being detained on their way to Washington, D.C. It is spelled out very specifically. Yes he was going to do a speech that morning, but he was also going back for session that afternoon. Now that would have been seen as seeking privilege, though it would have been his right.

Unfortunately I have very light sensitive eyes. The sun can give me a migraine in a matter of minutes. So I have sunglasses all over the place. I usually prefer dark gray, gray/green or amber lenses. For dress usually wear my Ray Ban Wayfarers or Clubmasters. I do find it hard to find sunglasses that are not aviator style, which will fold flat to fit in a suitcoat inside pocket. I have several pair of Bolle that I like a lot and a pair of Revsions that work well, but are definitely not compact. I also have a couple pair of the Member's Mark glasses that you can get from the Sam's Club Vision Center. They have held up well and have good clear lenses. I don't know who makes those.

Well I don't think there's anything new under the sun being said about Newt. It's a rehashing of many of the same things that were said about him in the 90's. However, there were I guess, quite a few things people who didn't pay attention to these things then or were not old enough to remember are just hearing about. It is a catch 22 really. No one wants to pay media attention to someone not being considered as a serious candidate. Then they get all sorts of attention when they become the flavor of the month and plummet. Romney does not get the same thing because, as a former front runner, he went through all of this 4 years ago. Part of the problem of being a new guy on top you start getting all of that attention and criticism and fall back down, with little time to rehab your campaign and make another run. Paul just doesn't have a lot negs that haven't already been said. He pretty much is what he is. You either like his ideas or you don't. Of all of the people running he is the most principled. He won't tell you what he thinks you want to hear. He is thoughtful and well reasoned and can explain to you why thinks the way he does on his issues. He is very well read and adheres most always to his basic beliefs. I have known him for many years and have a very high opinion of him as a person. I know many of the people working for him. For me to say I have a high opinion of a long sitting politician does mean a lot to me, as I cannot say that of most of them. I will also note that I am not making an endorsement of him as president either. It is simply my experience in 20+ years of doing this.

I think Rammesh Ponnuru has a pretty solid article on Gingrich today. He reinforces some of my experiences with Gingrich and expands in other areas. For those of you who think Gingrich is a far better choice than the more moderate Romney, you should read it. Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Newt: Ramesh Ponnuru - Bloomberg

Bob has not been in that business for quite a few years now. He got religion and decided his new views and his business were not a good match. As to his gun stance it isn't a surprise to people who have known Bob for any length of time. He will likely change his mind and regret his interview a few months from now. He has a history of doing things like that. He also said at one point he was opposed to carrying in parks where kids played ball because parents get all heated about those games and bad things might happen. He is full of contradictions. He usually changes his mind not long after he comes out with something like this. His political endorsements have also been disastrous at times. He often regrets those decisions as well.

Dan Mitchell, Matt Mitchell (no relation), Tyler Cowen and Vero de Rugy are a few of the best econ writers with good ideas out there at present. There are several more. If interested let me know. A lot of the best work out there right now and several of the best thinkers are coming out of CATO and The Mercatus Center. I will freely admit that I am biased, based on affiliation, with my recommendations.

That is true. The story did start with a Mother Jones piece many years ago. It is true they were in the middle of a divorce when she had cancer. It is not true that he decided to divorce her when he found out she had cancer or that they knew of her cancer before deciding to divorce. It is true there was infidelity in the marriage. Newt is very much a political animal. He can get things done and he isn't afraid to take on a fight, even with those in his own party. At times the majority as been to the left of him and at times to the right of him. He has a brilliant mind for strategy and tactics. He is one of the best I have seen at putting ideas into simple messages that are generally appealing. He is one of the ultimate masters at adding adverbs and adjectives to the simplest ideas to make it sound grandiose, intellectual and wonderfully logical. He lead the republican and conservative drive to to congressional control in '94. He also had the help of a number of issue organizations which had had enough of the old guard and decided to push hard for a change as well. Newt's problem comes in effective leadership once he has the ability to make those changes. He orchestrated the defeat of many of his own ideas, before allowing their votes as speaker. He became overly protective of members of his party that really shouldn't need to be protected, ie they weren't voting with him and they weren't going to get the support of the opposition groups on the other side either. Newt allowed appeasement to take over the better part of discretion. As Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who feeds and alligator hoping it will eat him last". Clinton in his move to the right took advantage of Newt and Newt and the republicans took the brunt of the blame for the government shutdown, which by the way didn't save us any money. That combined with Newt's fallible belief that Lewinsky and that scandal would energize his base, cost him his leadership in the end.

Thanks! Even though I still worked for groups up here I was able to somewhat separate myself from it living in Tennessee for several years. I still travel a considerable amount and have always found it very energizing. Way too many people in this town live in a bubble. They only interact with others who cloister themselves in the beltway and end up losing touch. Traveling keeps me from forgetting what I fight for and why. Like you Mac I like to watch people who are good at what they do and I am very impressed with the level of competence, energy and knowledge represented in many of the youth now in the freedom and liberty movement. I had grown skeptical of whether anybody worthwhile was going to come along to be the future of our fight to preserve liberty. But I am energized by, not just their exuberance tinged with at least some reality, but by their humility that they indeed have a lot to learn. There are many more young people in the movement now than there were 20 years ago when I started. There are also many more legitimate organizations on solid footing providing them with good jobs and experience than there were back then. I have been very fortunate to be able to do work that I love and feel like I am making a difference. I was very lucky in that I worked for excellent people at the beginning of my career who were great mentors. They provided me with guidance, gave me enough rope to nearly hang myself a couple of times, then told me what I had done wrong. I had lots of opportunity to work in, and gain knowledge in, different areas. A good mentor or two can make all of the difference between a career that flourishes and one that languishes. I myself feel like I am on a learning curve again as well. Though I have been doing this for a long time I had stepped away from the more policy and intellectual side to work on the mobilization side for some time. I have to discipline myself again to the more intellectual and thought provoking side of solving problems and the brain draining aspect of writing and managing again. And of course the constant necessity to engross myself in primarily economic issues. In the past I knew my issues so well I could go on far longer than anyone would want to hear me on the issues I was involved with at the time, which included labor policies and issues and later I knew gun rights issues backward and forward. Now I focus nearly all of my time on budget, spending and taxes, national and state regulatory issues and free market issues in general. So even though I know a tremendous amount about all of those issues I have still felt for the last couple of months like I am drinking through a fire hose.

You are right David, it is one of the nice things about the internet. I am still reading TGO, just haven't had the time to post. And yes I have only moved in terms of my residence, but am still a Tennessean, by blood, birth and culture.

I haven't checked in for a while, but since I do have a few contacts on here I thought I would drop by. A number of years ago I left the northern Virginia/Washington DC area after becoming tired of the traffic, the people and the mixingbowl known as the nation's capitol. My wife and I wanted to have children and we wanted them to have the same Tennessee roots we had had. Well my wife I must say had hers late as her father was retired from the NYPD and moved them down here when she was a teen, but she's adopted southern now. It was risky for both of us to move as she was an attorney in a city that loves attorneys, hey it's the only one. I was an Executive Director of a lobbying organization with two and a half million members, had written many published op-eds and speeches for well knowns as well as contributed to several books, testified before many legislatures, all before I was thirty. Pretty much everyone thought I was nuts to move. I continued to work during most of that time for organizations based there, but had managed to live in Tennessee. It did require that I traveled a tremendous amount. It also required several lateral moves along the way. With each passing year I had fewer connections in an industry that thrives on connections and networks to succeed. All along I knew I would have to move back if I was to continue moving up in the world of policy and ideas, but I tried and tried to put it off. I spent the last few years doing a ton of hunting all over the world, taking and teaching some tactical courses and throwing lead in some other interesting spots all while doing work for a very large, well known and bureaucratic DC monolith. This past summer I decided it was time for a change. I needed to get back in the fight. I sent out a couple of feelers that I might be ready to move back into the mixingbowl, known as the capitol beltway. Kind of to my surprise several organizations made offers and it just became too much to pass up. The opportunity for executive leadership for a very well respected organization, full of classical liberal thinkers such as myself, was just too much to pass up. To sit in the chair once held by the likes of FA Hayek and Milton Friedman is a great thrill for me, though the names may not mean a lot to most. So I packed up and headed to northern Virginia. My family had to stay behind while my wife found a new job up here and while I found a new home for us to all live in here. Last month everything came together and they were able to join me and I am thankful for that. The kids have easily acclimated to new environs without skipping a beat and my 9 year old son is hounding me every weekend to take him to a different battlefield or museum. So now instead of rolling out of bed into my office I am taking the bus to the Metro, subway, every day. And I look at concrete and buildings from the office window instead of a nice rolling hill where I am about to go kill off some critter. But it's OK. I don't have to travel as much as I did which means more tie at home and the frequent trips to places in the east like NYC can easily be a day ride on a train back and forth instead of the hassles of air travel, which I am doing less as well. And in the end we actually have a nice home in a rather rural area of the burbs, at the end of a cul de sac, with no traffic and lots of trees. A nice little spot surrounded by the traffic mayhem of the area. If ever in the area of the District pm me and let me know when you'll be around, maybe we can meet for a beer. And that is where I now hang my hat. Best of thanksgivings to my Tennessee gun totin' brethren.

Yes you would be wrong. The NRA was involved in both cases, and heavily so. I won't go into the details of Heller, but some disagreed with some of the NRA's involvement. However I will say it came to the court at the proper time and not before. The NRA was involved in more ways than most other organizations as well. Most only wrote an Amicus brief to the case. The McDonald came about as the result of two different cases filed against Chicago laws at nearly the same time. In the end those cases were rolled into one before the appellate courts. In the McDonald case, not only was the NRA involved with the preparation of the case, but also argued the case before the court. There were two basic arguments made in support of McDonald. One was argued by the NRA in support of the issue based on the 14th Amendment and Incorporation. The second argument was made by Alan Guira. He argued for McDonald to also be based upon the privileges and immunities clause. In the end all 5 justices deciding in support said they found the 14th incorporation argument to be the most compelling, though Thomas was clear to also mention he supported the argument based on privileges and immunities. In truth I supported the P&I argument as well, though felt the court would never step that far and would likely find the 14th the easiest way to decide in favor of McDonald. In the end though it helped to have both arguments laid out before the court.

Congrats to you for your effort. we are all created equal only in liberty, not in ability. Knowing what you know now about your abilities, strengths and weaknesses, you should do a great deal of self examination in regards to what you are studying and what you plan to do for a career. Major in something that will cater to your strengths and look for a career that again will cater to your strengths. Way too often I see college grads who look for a career that they think will pay them a lot of money down the road, but that in reality is not something that caters to their natural skill set. In a sense I made the same mistake myself. I was determined to be a pilot or an aerospace engineer. I studied aeronautics and suffered through the intense mathematics the entire time. My father, who flew in the navy, always found math easy. I wasn't geared that way. In the end I added a second major of political philosophy. I am a naturally gifted writer, with extremely good logic and reason skills. I also have a photographic memory and found my other studies more enjoyable and far easier, primarily because I played up to my skill set. I also found I was very good at developing relationships, building trust in people and could apply my understanding of complex issues and convey them in easy to understand terms. Needless to say I never worked as an engineer, though I did know the material, I would never have been happy. I did fly for a while, but decided I didn't want to do it for a living. I can't say my studies never helped as I did work as a lobbyist for the aerospace industry for a time, but ended up lobbying for other things and writing policy books.